Monday, July 9, 2007

July 3 was yet another sad day in Iran. Less than a week after nationwide disturbances over gasoline rationing, Tehran's prosecutor general, Saeed Mortazavi, the person most responsible for the 2000 wholesale reformist and independent press closures in Iran, ordered the re-suspension of the daily Ham-mihan (Compatriot). Ham-mihan is a newspaper whose license holder is Gholamhossein Karbaschi, the former enterprising mayor of Tehran in the late 1980s and most of the 1990s responsible for the building of many public spaces (parks and cultural centers), before he was brought to trial, jailed, and stripped of his ability to be active politically for several years on mostly trumped up embezzling charges.

Ham-miham was introduced into the Iranian press scene in 2000 during the heyday of newspaper and magazine closures by the then judge Mortazavi and was immediately suspended. It took Karbashchi 7 years of court battles to lift its suspension and the paper began publishing in May with a new editorial staff, headed by Mohammad Qouchani, one of Iran’s youngest and more astute editors and political analysts. Unfortunately Mortazavi could handle only 42 issues of Ham-mihan which despite its short life had developed a large pool of readers (see pictures of the young staff of Ham-mihan on the day of closure here).

His justification for the suspension was “faults in the legal proceedings” presumably not followed in the trial that led to the lifting of the suspension. Mortazavi’s reasoning was immediately rejected publicly by the presiding judge that had lifted the suspension. And Ham-mihan’s lawyers have already turned in their legal petition to reverse the decision.

The questioning of Mortazavi’s order by a well-established judge suggests that unlike 2000 when the ban on over 100 reformist papers was implemented, today there is no consensus within the judiciary about the wisdom of such moves (and the broader security oriented environment which I have argued elsewhere is being created), particularly since almost all of the newspapers that currently publish do so with quite a bit of self-censorship based on the guidelines of “sensitive” topics that are issued by the Supreme National Security Council. These directives include bans on the analysis of nuclear-related issues as well as on some sensitive time-bound topics such as gasoline riots.

Still, unlike the prerevolutionary period, when there was a censor physically present in every newspaper, checking topics and contents line by line, contemporary journalism in Iran does not have to contend with prior censorship. Rather, it (and the license holder for the newspaper who the current press laws consider responsible for whatever goes in the paper) pays the cost when it crosses a line that someone powerful deems to be a red line. It is this dynamic and the constant testing of what is permissible that prevents Iranian journalism from dying. But it is also what makes it so hard to swallow the news, which comes almost like a kick in the stomach to the staff as well as readers, when as a good a paper as Ham-mihan is closed.

There are still other newspapers such as E'temad-e Melli, E’temad, Shargh (which like Ham-mihan recently came out of suspension), Sarmayeh, and Donya-e Eqtesad that continue to publish critical commentary about government policies and variety of issues that plague the society. But the re-suspension of Ham-mihan, along with the permanent banning of the suspended Mosharekat, the official party newspaper of the reformist Islamic Iran’s Participation Front and the changing of the head of ILNA (Iranian Labor News Agency which is affiliated the House of Labor, an organization with reformist tendencies which regularly reports on labor unrests) despite evident resistance within the judiciary and only a couple of months after several papers came out of suspension, has led to real confusion about the fate of the press.

This confusion is beginning to turn into fear with a warning by Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi, the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, about a “creeping coup”; not a “planned in a military barrack” but one that is essentially designed and organized by reformist and independent press and “moving within a framework of an action to overthrow” the system. Mimicking Saffar and often prodding him is a chorus of hardline newspapers and websites, supportive of Ahmadinejad, who are “naming names” and pointing to individual commentators or publishers who are moving “in line with the enemy.”

So if all this happening, why still wonder about the direction the press is taking in Iran? Should one take this as evidence of a real “creeping coup” by the government with the intent of complete closure of the political space and stifling of independent or critical journalism which was feared with Ahmadinejad’s presidency and the hardliners control of all levers of government? After all, the closure of the political space that came to Iran after the 1953 coup did not come overnight either.

The answer to this question, I think, is still negative. The complete closure of the public space is unlikely essentially because of the reality of intense elite competition and conflict. So long as there are rich patrons of reformist, centrist or even conservative newspapers, some sort of critical press (in the sense of being critical of the opposing camps, their policies or their proposed policies) will continue to exist. This economic aspect is usually forgotten in the analysis of the Iranian press. The starting and running of a newspaper, especially of the quality of Ham-mihan, is very expensive and can only be made possible if there are motivated and wealthy investors/sponsors or a collection of them.

To be sure, the constant closures and re-openings, only to be faced with re-closures, can be considered an attempt to demoralize precisely the sponsors/investors that make contending newspapers possible. In the past few months, a few other newspapers and magazines have had their suspension lifted. But with what has happened to Ham-mihan, their investors are bound to think twice before embarking on the major cost of re-starting a newspaper. At the same time, it is a reality of Iranian politics that even the wholesale closure of newspapers in 2000 and continued harassment and forced unemployment of hundreds of journalists have not prevented substantial criticism of the government and members of the parliament.

In fact, inside Iran, the openly discussed issue is whether the reasons for this most recent attack against the press is to be found in the desires of a nervous administration, criticized on a daily basis in the Iranian papers for incompetence and inability to fulfill economic promises, to control the amount of negative press it is receiving. The nervousness of Ahmadinejad's government is amply revealed in its lashing out even against the reportage that comes out of the state-controlled television and radio regarding people’s daily economic struggles with inflation, a long-standing problem which has worsened because of its expansionary economic policies. This is why I think that the most likely outcome of this latest attack is more of the same: journalism will continue to be a very hazardous and yet still attractive profession in Iran!

14 comments:

Could you be more specific about what you mean by "mostly" trumped up charges of mbezzling? "Mostly" suggests a certain incompleteness -so just how incompletely trumped up were these charges? Maybe it doesn't make much difference to the significance of what happened to him back then - but maybe it does!

The reality was that during the 10-year mayorship of Karbaschi there was favoritism, selling of high-rise building permits in neighborhoods that proper zoning should have prevented such buildings and so on. Karbaschi justified his moves (which clearly revitalized the city of Tehran) on the basis of his desire to cover city finances not out of oil money but out of city generated funds. As such he was was making up rule as he was making decisions and on that basis could have been and was faulted. But the trial, presided by a judge who is now Ahmadinejad's minister of intelligence and shown on national television, was clearly political and was perceived as such by many people who I think rightly saw it as the first conservative attack against a person who during the 1997 presidential election had decided to throw his support for Khatami.

Yesterday was July 8th, and the eight anniversary of the 99 Students' Uprising. The crackdown to stop any kind of public protest was so widespread that it included several hundred ordinary motorcyclists, plus the "ususall suspects" students, workers, women activists. Crack down on the press is only ONE segment of the regime's strategy to wipe out all oppositional movemenets in Iran.

The best kind of Forex training can be with an individual trainer or mentor. This would be someone with many years of Forex experience who can offer insights and strategies learned through the course of conducting thousands of transactions. Forex mentors usually charge a lot of money – thousands of dollars is not unheard of. Whether the cost is worth it is up to the individual to decide. Working with a master trader can provide valuable insight into the psychology of Forex trading.

About US

Call for Papers

We seek submission of guest opinion pieces, from academic specialists, on urgent issues of the day in global affairs. We especially encourage submissions from anthropologists, historians, sociologists, and those in other disciplines who have expertise but do not often speak on current events. The best such pieces are typically 800 to 1000 words, with one central point to make. Some good tips are here, with part two being here. Some other good advice is here. Op-eds will be carefully considered but the editor reserves the right to decline them and may not have time to give detailed responses. Submissions to .